He said that while it was “a preference and not a requirement” that transgender women dress as men in his courtroom, “sometimes persons commit offences dressed as males and then when they appear in court dressed as a female it can have implications for how a victim can identify his or her accuser, or vice versa”.

He also said that it would be up to parliament to abolish Guyana’s law criminalising cross-dressing and not a court of law.

“It’s really a dereliction of duty for Magistrate Bess to say that parliament has to change the law,” he said.

“While he is a magistrate not a judge, the court does have the power to declare that a particular law is unconstitutional… Where there’s conflict, the constitution prevails.”

‘Take the lead!’

A former president of the Guyana Bar Association, Ronald Burch-Smith, also questioned the continued application of the law.

“There’s a legitimate concern when it comes to things like crime and robbery, that persons dressed in disguise might take advantage of female clothing,” he said.

“But in the [cases] that have come up so far that has never been an issue. It’s taking advantage of an already oppressed minority.

“I think the courts should take the lead in recognising that these things are irrelevant to justice.”

Opposition to the cross-dressing law was sparked in 2009 when transgender activist Quincy McEwan and six others were arrested and fined for loitering and wearing female attire.

In protest, Ms McEwan founded Guyana Trans United (GTU) and in 2010 launched a Supreme Court challenge against the cross-dressing law, in partnership with sister organisation SASOD and the University of the West Indies’ Rights Advocacy Project, U-RAP.

When the case came before the court in 2013, Guyana’s then-chief justice, Ian Chang, ruled that cross-dressing was legal unless done for an “improper purpose”.

He did not say what constituted an improper purpose.

Seeking clarification, Ms McEwan and her supporters took the matter to Guyana’s Court of Appeal, denouncing the law as “discriminatory” and “unconstitutional”.

But late in February they received the news that their appeal had been dismissed and Mr Chang’s ruling upheld.

‘Let our voices be heard’

Although frustrated with the decision, GTU and SASOD are determined to press on.

“Our next step is to continue to have protests, let our voices be heard and then to get a petition before parliament,” Ms McEwan said.

“The Church is one factor in all of this,” said the Attorney General. “But as time goes by everything becomes more enlightened.”

Ms Trotman is hoping change comes soon. Without the money to appeal Magistrate Bess’s decision, she said: “I finished with the case. It’s sad but what you can do? Certain laws need to be changed. It’s very discriminating to us here in Guyana. When you’re one thing and people want you to be something else.”

News Room is a news outlet launched in 2016 and catered to persons interested in creative and intelligent journalism with a broad perspective. We are a daily news broadcast on E-Networks channel, E1, and our stories are also distributed via the devices closest at hand: mobile phones and tablets.